[flbrewer]

I'm curious how well you can perceive the exact same recipe with varying degrees of temp (150 vs 155 or 160) and thickness? 

[dmtaylor]

Very very very difficult, if not impossible.  We love to talk about these variables as if we understand them, when in truth, we really do not.  Hopefully Denny will chime in as I know he's had a lot of experience recently with experiments in this area.....

[denny]

I'm curious how well you can perceive the exact same recipe with varying degrees of temp (150 vs 155 or 160) and thickness?

So little difference as to be pretty much imperceptible.  Especially mash thickness.  I recently mashed the same recipe at 153 and 168 and it came out pretty much identical.

[cascadesrunner]

Let me tee this one up for someone...How does the higher mash temp impact the fermentables? 

[dmtaylor]

Theoretically, the beta amylase enzyme becomes more denatured with higher temperatures, so the wort is [EDIT: "less"] fermentable.  However, small temperature differences of a couple of degrees probably don't matter too much.  It should become more noticeable at say 6 or 8 degrees difference, e.g., the difference between mashing at 148 F versus 156 F might be noticeable.  Maybe.

More experiments are necessary to confirm real life results.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the malts we have today are way better modified and have way more enzymes than the same malts produced just ~15 years ago or more.  High tech kind of stuff.  Our maltsters are getting better and better everyday.  So, what was very significant 50 years ago might not actually be significant at all anymore.

[denny]

Theoretically, the beta amylase enzyme becomes more denatured with higher temperatures, so the wort is more fermentable.  However, small temperature differences of a couple of degrees probably don't matter too much.  It should become more noticeable at say 6 or 8 degrees difference, e.g., the difference between mashing at 148 F versus 156 F might be noticeable.  Maybe.

More experiments are necessary to confirm real life results.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the malts we have today are way better modified and have way more enzymes than the same malts produced just ~15 years ago or more.  High tech kind of stuff.  Our maltsters are getting better and better everyday.  So, what was very significant 50 years ago might not actually be significant at all anymore.

One of us is confused....wouldn't denaturing beta make it less fermentable?

[HoosierBrew]

the difference between mashing at 148 F versus 156 F might be noticeable.  Maybe.

That's where I see a difference,ie., sub-150F.  Mashing 150-158,  I cant' say I see a lot of difference. But 146-149 compared to mashing at say 154F, I definitely see a difference in attenuation and body/mouthfeel.

[denny]

the difference between mashing at 148 F versus 156 F might be noticeable.  Maybe.

That's where I see a difference,ie., sub-150F.  Mashing 150-158,  I cant' say I see a lot of difference. But 146-149 compared to mashing at say 154F, I definitely see a difference in attenuation and body/mouthfeel.

same here

[brewday]

the difference between mashing at 148 F versus 156 F might be noticeable.  Maybe.

That's where I see a difference,ie., sub-150F.  Mashing 150-158,  I cant' say I see a lot of difference. But 146-149 compared to mashing at say 154F, I definitely see a difference in attenuation and body/mouthfeel.

+1

[dmtaylor]

Oops, I used the wrong word.  Less fermentable at higher temps, you are correct.  I'm not confused, just spit out the wrong word at the wrong time on accident.

[hopfenundmalz]

I'm curious how well you can perceive the exact same recipe with varying degrees of temp (150 vs 155 or 160) and thickness?

So little difference as to be pretty much imperceptible.  Especially mash thickness.  I recently mashed the same recipe at 153 and 168 and it came out pretty much identical.

Question Denny, what was the base malt?

[denny]

Question Denny, what was the base malt?

About 50/50 Rahr pale and GW Munich 10L.  Only a single, and surprising, data point.  I don't want to draw any sweeping conclusions from it, but it's interesting.

[hopfenundmalz]

Question Denny, what was the base malt?

About 50/50 Rahr pale and GW Munich 10L.  Only a single, and surprising, data point.  I don't want to draw any sweeping conclusions from it, but it's interesting.

I would have guessed all NA 2 row, which would be hot enough to convert quickly at 168, maybe there were still enough enzymes. Would be interesting with Maris Otter, lower Lintner, and not much Alpha according to "Brewing" by Lewis.

[flbrewer]

Good information. Makes me less concerned with the mash temp of my beer. Not to say I can't hold a specific temp. for an hour, but I won't question the final product because of the mash temp.

[a10t2]

This is mostly anecdotal (though not just my anecdotes), but it seems that with modern base malts being so "hot", mash temperature has little impact on fermentability. On top of which it takes a very large change in attenuation to have flavor impacts. I've tasted beers side by side with FG variations of 1.5°P that were indistinguishable. Fermentability really only changes the concentrations of starch and ethanol, and neither provides much of the flavor of beer.

As a practical matter, I only do single-infusion mashes at two temperatures: 67°C and 72°C (about 153°F and 162°F). For the most part, anything under ~12°P gets the higher temp; in almost anything else I'm looking for maximum attenuation.

I did accidentally mash a small beer at 78°C recently and still got ~72% apparent attenuation. At 72°C I was hoping for ~78%. The base malt in that was Weyermann Pilsner.